AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. P. Devadass, J.—These two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and Civil Revision Petition since arising out of the same road accident they are tagged together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
On 07.06.2002, on the Tenkasi - Ambasamuthiram Road, one Thangam Nadar came driven the two-wheeler TN-72-Y 4487 with Pushpam and Arumaikani @ Arumaikili as his pillion riders. At that time, from the opposite side, appellant''s bus came driven by R.W.1. A road accident took place. In this Thangam Nadar and Pushpam died. Arumaikani @ Arumaikili sustained injuries.
The dependants of the deceased and the injured have claimed compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Subordinate Judge), Tenkasi.
The Tribunal appreciating the evidence, oral and documentary, fastened negligence on the part of R.W.1and assessed the compensation as under:
Sl. No.
Claimant
M.C.O.P.No.
Amount awarded
C.M.A./C.R.P. No.
1
Muppudathi Muthu & 3 Others for deceased Pushpam
296 of 2003
Rs.2,80,000
CMA.1245 of 2005
2
Arumaikani @ Arumaikili & 4 Others for deceased Thangam Nadar
297 of 2003
Rs.1,63,600
CMA.1246 of 2005
3
Arumaikani @ Arumaikili
298 of 2003
Rs. 8,000
CRP.1129 of 2005
The learned counsel for the appellant contended that at the time of accident, the TVS-50 Bike Rider carried two pillion-riders. He had attempted to cross the road and lost the balance and that is how the road accident took place. R.W.1 bus driver is not solely responsible for the accident. Further, the amount awarded are also excessive.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants would contend that by sufficient oral and documentary evidence, it has been established that R.W.1 has been guilty of negligence. In the circumstances, the Tribunal rightly concluded that R.W.1 is responsible for the accident. Further, what was granted itself is very less.
I have anxiously considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned award of the Tribunal.
Ex.P.1 F.I.R. has been lodged against the bus driver/R.W.1 Selvaraj. Besides that there is eyewitness account of Arumaikani @ Arumaikili, who is a claimant. She had deposed that R.W.1 came driven the bus in an rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction and dashed against the TVS-50.
Further, pillion riders cannot be stated to have contributed for the accident. Further, merely on account of persons travelling in a bike is more than permitted capacity, it cannot be concluded that has contributed to the accident unless there are acceptable evidence to show that because of the overload, the rider of the vehicle lost his balance and lost control of the vehicle. In this case that is not established.
The Tribunal analysed the oral and documentary evidence and concluded that R.W.1 is guilty of negligence. The above finding of the Tribunal is not suffering from any perversity. We concur with that.
Considering the age of the deceased and their occupation and as regards the injured his pain and sufferings which she has undergone and the nature of the injury, what was awarded by the Tribunal is neither high nor low, but just.
In view of the foregoings, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and Civil Revision Petition are dismissed. The common award of the Tribunal is upheld. As the entire amount has been deposited, on proper petition, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount, less amount, if any already withdrawn to the adult claimants. In respect of minors, their amount shall be deposited in a Nationalized Bank, if not already deposited and if already deposited, the amount shall continue to be in deposit till their attaining 18 years of age. However, accrued interest thereon shall be paid to the guardian. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.